this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
30 points (100.0% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5239 readers
430 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world. About 1C of total warming. Second chart: about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability. Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases. About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
30
Climate change almost wipes out decline in global area burned by wildfires (www.carbonbrief.org)
submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

changes in population distribution and land use over the 20th century – including forest fragmentation and the conversion of land for urban development and agriculture – have suppressed wildfires, driving down global burned area by 19%.

However, this decline has been hindered by human-caused warming, which has expanded the area burned by 16% through increasingly hot and dry conditions across much of the world.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure, but the most of the ideas people would be happy about involve keeping the bulk of the human population alive, along with the rest of the ecosystem.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

And most people want a utopia, at a certain point however we have to acknowledge the billions guaranteed to die from the status quo aren't destined better or quicker deaths than those killed by whatever solution we choose now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Starting a nuclear war is still likely far worse than even status quo.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think you could nuke the atmosphere without a nuclear war, you’d just need a UN Climate Action resolution

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago
  1. You wouldn't want to actually use nuclear weapons
  2. You'd need to actually maintain technical geoengineering for hundreds of thousands of years, eg: for something as long as time time period that modern humans have existed.